Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rex_Nex]

How is this any different really from DFTerm for cooperative play (ASCII only)?
Another strong point against multiplayer is that network code and the like introduces a lot of potential bugs.  It's not exactly a simple topic and there are a good number of things that will almost certaintly take up more of Toady's time.

It's vastly different. DFTerm is highly limited, including forcing ASCII onto users, along with several other things. DFTerm is like Hamachi for Dwarf Fortress, DD would be more like Battle.net.

Indeed, and thats why this would be a user-run project, only somewhat supported by toady. If he fixes things for DD, all the better, but I in no way would recommend he go out of his way to fix things incompatible with multiplayer. And you're right, its not a simply topic by any means, but this mearly theorycraft, am I not right?

Rather unlikely.  This is Toady's project and his livelihood.  Whether or not you agree with his stance, you're not likely to be able to change it.  Granted, what I think you are proposing would possibly require much less of the source (mostly just some way to merge worlds on updates) which could theoretically be a seperate program.

Him giving us the full blown souce code anywhere in the forseeable future is damn near impossible, but like you said, much less of the source would be needed for this.

Sure it's possible, but how is this really that different from a combination of the forums, wiki, and mostly the DFFD?  There are dozens of succession games that run just fine without a third party utility and there are whole threads and wiki pages devoted to worldgen recipes.

Have you been to a mall?

The problem is that Toady already seems to regret the amount of source that he's already thrown out to the public, and isn't interested in doing any more.

I wasn't aware anyone had any of the source code. If you mean the amount of customization you can do through Init, then I don't understand how he feels that way. The only things you can change are the same things that some users either need to change or things that make the interface more friendly (Such as "More" and the announcement init.)

[NW_Kohaku]

The problem is that Toady already seems to regret the amount of source that he's already thrown out to the public, and isn't interested in doing any more.

I wasn't aware anyone had any of the source code. If you mean the amount of customization you can do through Init, then I don't understand how he feels that way. The only things you can change are the same things that some users either need to change or things that make the interface more friendly (Such as "More" and the announcement init.)

This comes up with the graphics arguments and Baughn, who made the 40d# series, and who intigrated it with the "standard" DF.  There were calls for a "front end" to be made so that people could make full custom UIs instead of relying on memory hacks like Stonesense does.

Take a look at this Footkerchief post here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34949.msg1331101#msg1331101

[JanusTwoface]

It's vastly different. DFTerm is highly limited, including forcing ASCII onto users, along with several other things. DFTerm is like Hamachi for Dwarf Fortress, DD would be more like Battle.net.

True, but the point (that I somehow managed not to finish typing) is that it's the beginning of what could work.  Perhaps if a graphical framework could be built upon that?  I seem to remember that you could you tilesets if you make them into a font that PuTTy can read, although tile graphics aren't possible.

Sure it's possible, but how is this really that different from a combination of the forums, wiki, and mostly the DFFD?  There are dozens of succession games that run just fine without a third party utility and there are whole threads and wiki pages devoted to worldgen recipes.

Have you been to a mall?

Yes, but it's rare, I don't shop much.  I see your point though.  Yes, a seperate app that could manage succession games and/or mods would be pretty cool (Uristmod can do the mods to some extent).  It really depends on if there's someone with the experience that would be interested in picking such a project up.  Ideas are (relatively) easy, implementation is hard.

[Eugenitor]

There's another problem with multiple embarks happening at once in one persistent world: Time. Assuming that not every fort is being played at the same speed, and people are allowed to pause, there's no universal clock. Which means that legends, etc are going to be particularly weird. Now, it might be possible just to not care about that, and make seasons, etc work completely differently (multiple winters per "year" for the faster players?), but it's still going to crop up.

I love the idea, though. One of your engravers suddenly makes an image of some other fort's dwarves getting owned by some FB you've never heard of.

Multiple players on one embark, though? Gah. That'd be hell to code.

[Rex_Nex]

True, but the point (that I somehow managed not to finish typing) is that it's the beginning of what could work.  Perhaps if a graphical framework could be built upon that?  I seem to remember that you could you tilesets if you make them into a font that PuTTy can read, although tile graphics aren't possible.

Perhaps it is. Keeping it strictly PuTTy is going to give some major limitations on what can be done, however. I am aware DFTerm is far from done, though, and I hope it builds itself up into something quite grand.

Yes, but it's rare, I don't shop much.  I see your point though.  Yes, a seperate app that could manage succession games and/or mods would be pretty cool (Uristmod can do the mods to some extent).  It really depends on if there's someone with the experience that would be interested in picking such a project up.  Ideas are (relatively) easy, implementation is hard.

You're absolutely right here. The whole project is based completely on if anyone is actually interested in coding such a thing, and how difficult it would to do so. UristMod is nice, but its hardly what I'm looking for. Its a Mod Manager, I want a all-in-one Game Manager. One of those programs that fit into that catagory of "Programs I open when I start Dwarf Fortress" along with Dwarf Therapist and Stonesense.

There's another problem with multiple embarks happening at once in one persistent world: Time. Assuming that not every fort is being played at the same speed, and people are allowed to pause, there's no universal clock. Which means that legends, etc are going to be particularly weird. Now, it might be possible just to not care about that, and make seasons, etc work completely differently (multiple winters per "year" for the faster players?), but it's still going to crop up.

I love the idea, though. One of your engravers suddenly makes an image of some other fort's dwarves getting owned by some FB you've never heard of.

Multiple players on one embark, though? Gah. That'd be hell to code.

A system like that would be too confusing for the players, if even possible. I was more thinking of just letting the "Save and Quit" function already in dwarf fortress not only save the fortress, but also upload it onto the Server World. Yes, this means the fort wont be uploaded in real time, but there isnt really a point in doing that. The only ways possible of interacting with other forts is from engravings and unit statistics (Kills, marriages, etc), which would hardly require real-time updating like your suggesting though. I do understand where you are coming from with the universal clock and whatnot, however. Perhaps DDist's world wont be an actual world you get from worldgen, but more of a (Huge) patchwork of individual maps that coincide to create continents. This would eliminate the whole need for anything universal, really.

And yes, that would lead to some epic things

Best leave that kind of "Multiple users in one embark" type thing to cooperative play, which DFTerm already provides. Having a full blown two forts in one embark would be HFS to code. Pure, lava-clad HFS.

[Eugenitor]

I was more thinking of just letting the "Save and Quit" function already in dwarf fortress not only save the fortress, but also upload it onto the Server World.

What about named creatures and historical figures invading the fortress and dying, or even coming to the fortress and surviving for a while? One king cannot be in two forts at the same time. If the server determines who gets what, it's all well and good; if the client determines it, we've got problems. (Also, client-side processing of, well, anything important is generally a Bad Idea.)

Of course, we haven't even touched on the whole unleashing-HFS thing...

[existent]

Maybe the best option would be simply allowing the "save + quit + upload" thing mentioned, and then letting another player take the role of a civilization of goblins or whatever. The dwarf player plays his embark for a year, and then the goblin plays his (entirely different, but on the same world) embark for a year. Once off-site stuff gets implemented, the goblin player could send a sieging force, to attack the dwarf next season, and vice-versa. It's much more in-step with existing succession-type games, and would sit with the overall flavor of DF as well.

[anotherthing]

The big problem is the passage of time. Worldgen creates a number of dwarven civs that could each have one player behind them to keep things a little more tidy. Once out of civs, the remaining players hopping in can wind up Adventurers in that world. It would make things more interesting for those who play adventure mode, so long as they like walking.

Of course, even the Spore content upload thing has the problem with the passage of time for a fortress.

[NW_Kohaku]

If it's Adventure Mode, then time is on a completely different scale.  You don't play through a whole year in a couple days of playing in Adventure Mode, the Fortress Mode players will completely leave you in the dust...

Basically, playing "Multiplayer" Adventure Mode would be like downloading your friend's save after he abandoned his fort, and playing on Adventure Mode, except maybe there are still dwarves standing around doing nothing in his fort instead of letting it fill up with monsters.

[Rex_Nex]

What about named creatures and historical figures invading the fortress and dying, or even coming to the fortress and surviving for a while? One king cannot be in two forts at the same time. If the server determines who gets what, it's all well and good; if the client determines it, we've got problems. (Also, client-side processing of, well, anything important is generally a Bad Idea.)

Of course, we haven't even touched on the whole unleashing-HFS thing...

Its client-side maps on a server-side world. Each map comes from whatever world the user has genned it from, and is then uploaded into the Server World, however that may be done.

Maybe the best option would be simply allowing the "save + quit + upload" thing mentioned, and then letting another player take the role of a civilization of goblins or whatever. The dwarf player plays his embark for a year, and then the goblin plays his (entirely different, but on the same world) embark for a year. Once off-site stuff gets implemented, the goblin player could send a sieging force, to attack the dwarf next season, and vice-versa. It's much more in-step with existing succession-type games, and would sit with the overall flavor of DF as well.

While that sounds fun, it sounds quite a step both down the road and in terms of how much of the source would be needed. To make DF online work, you would need something that is already well established and would require little to no source code.

If it's Adventure Mode, then time is on a completely different scale.  You don't play through a whole year in a couple days of playing in Adventure Mode, the Fortress Mode players will completely leave you in the dust...

Basically, playing "Multiplayer" Adventure Mode would be like downloading your friend's save after he abandoned his fort, and playing on Adventure Mode, except maybe there are still dwarves standing around doing nothing in his fort instead of letting it fill up with monsters.

Yep. I seriously doubt adventure mode and fortress mode will both be able to coincide at once - the world would have to be strictly adventure mode, fortress mode, or like you said, loading an abandoned fort. There is no way we could have active forts under player control while simultaneously having adventure mode.